Tuesday, June 26, 2012

American Muslims Stone Christians in Dearborn, MI

The Dearborn Saga continues.

There's no questioning the fact that Ruben Israel's group came to the Dearborn Arab Festival to provoke a response from Muslims. But their actions were protected by the U.S. Constitution. The violent response they received from Muslims, however, was illegal. Every bottle, rock, or milk crate thrown was an assault.

I'm no fan of Ruben Israel. Indeed, I'm appalled at some of his group's antics. Yet I can't help but think that the city has brought this on themselves. Why did Ruben Israel come to the festival? Because Dearborn Police started arresting Christians (myself included) for peacefully sharing the Gospel in 2010. Thus, Ruben's message is: "If you're going to start messing with Christians, you're going to have to deal with us."

And so the Dearborn Arab Festival has become a beacon for anyone who wants a confrontation with Muslims. If festival security hadn't started entrapping and assaulting Christians in 2009, and if Dearborn Police hadn't unveiled their strategy of arresting Christians in 2010, I doubt Ruben would have ever set foot in Dearborn.

The city is upset by all the attention they're getting. Perhaps it's time for the city to think about the sources of all the negative publicity: The American Arab Chamber of Commerce, the Dearborn Police Department, Chief Ronald Haddad, Prosecutor William Debiasi, Judge Mark Somers, and Mayor John O'Reilly. I have no doubt that if the City of Dearborn were to finally start taking responsibility for their misdeeds (instead of constantly portraying the city as the victim), the spiral they're caught in would eventually turn around.

His group is the sort that shows up at gay parades with signs that say "God Hates Fags" and such. At the Dearborn Arab Festival, they came with a pig's head on a pole, along with signs saying "Muhammad Was a Pervert" and "Muhammad Was a Pedophile."

Again, I'd say that the city brought this on themselves. But if he's targeting Dearborn because of our arrests, he's confronting the wrong people. The mayor's office would be a much better place for a demonstration.

I must admit I find it a little funny the way the police officer says, "We've been gentle with you." That's actually true. They arrested Acts 17 just for having a convo. And a different year they just let the Muslims chase Acts 17 outta the place. These guys actually got escorted out safely and not arrested.

All of which is not to say that I approve of the cops not protecting them.

After all, I worry that this might send the following message to the Muslims at the festival: Next year when David and the other peaceful guys who just want to have conversations show up, just go right ahead and start throwing stuff at them. Then the police will escort them out. Nothing will happen to the Muslims. What's to stop them?

OK, this means war is already here. From what you said, they don't sound like the best people, but you do not use violence no matter what. You arrest anyone rioting until you run out of county jail space and let them know that the rule of law is valid. Simply put, this is unacceptable, and the first step to instituing sharia is ignoring these things. This needs to be televised to the nation along with the relevant verses.

Sometimes my blood gets a little boiling with injustice so blatant. David, you're a better man than I, you confront these people without getting as angry as I do, but expose injustice with a cool head. I salute you pal.

I was very disgusted by the cops with how they protective the rioters in this situation despite the fact that isreal and his gospel preachers were definitely the aggressors verbally. Having said that, i am more disappointment on that there was LESS dialogue and just shouting about false GOD's and attack Muhammad. though the information in conclusion might be correct, Like Paul, we must reason and show them rather then throw insults. The Majority were probably teens through men in there mid 20's. I hold the cops with serious blame for violations of the constitution but can't ignore that poor job the evangelist group did to reach lost souls.

If these men had been cussing and yelling in the faces of Muslims and throwing things at the Muslims they would have been arrested. These policemen have still not learned that their job is to enforce U.S. law, not allow Muslims to enforce Shariah law. I hope the police department is sued demanding the policemen involved be fired and replaced with properly trained officers.

I think the worst part of the whole thing was the fact that the parents for the most part just stood around and let the kids act in such a disgraceful manner. Shame on the parents for allowing their kids to behave in this way.

Wow... is that in middle east?what in US!! oh well.. Islam is no different doesn't matter where they all the same I grew up in moslem country,they all like that I'm not surprise accept in United state shocking.........

I am against swarmers such as Ruben Israel. That's so typical americanswamer thing to get out with boards and charts etc with things writtoen on it such as "Lake of fire" and all that stuff. Not a good representation of christianity.

He should have considered what scripture sais:

Luke 10, chapter 10-11:

"But into whatsoever city ye enter and they receive you not, go your ways out into the streets of the same and say,11 ‘Even the very dust of your city, which cleaveth on us, we do wipe off against you. Notwithstanding, be ye sure of this: that the Kingdom of God is come nigh unto you."

With all that said, I am not defending the muslims at all. They behaved primitive and violent as they always do. It was interesting to see, how in an instant they can yell foul language and in the next second they shout "Allahuakbar."

I FOUND IT DISGUSTING THAT THESE SO CALLED MUSLIMS BOTH BEHAVE AND ARE ALLOWED OT BEHAVE LIKE A PACK OF WILD BLACK WOLVES ( WILD DOGS).WHY HADNT THE ELDERLY POLICE GUY RETIRED A FEW YEARS AGO??HE IS OBVIOUSLY UNDER MAN POWERED AND UNEDUCATED IN WHO IS RIGHT NOR WRONG IN THESE MATTERS.FOLKS IF YOU DONT WAKE UP NOW.. THIS IS COMING TO YOUR COUNTRY, YOUR COUNTY, YOUR TOWN SOON.. MAKE A STAND.. LEARN ABOUT AND AGAINST ISLAM NOW, EXPOSE THE HATE IN THE QURAN FROM THIS DAY ON.. IT IS NEVER TOO LATE TO ACT.. ACT NOW

why oh why does the usa police force allow islamic folks ot behave like this?? they were allowed to physically and verbally attack fellow amreicans whilst elderly way past their best police officers look on??????maybe it is time that that same elderly police man kindly retirred??and hand the job over to somone who can handle it??pack of animals i tell u

What kind of free people are they? What kind of upbringing these children got from their parents? Obscenity and foul language used is so disturbing. Are these the same people and believers who says their religion is PEACE? Come on, you gotta be joking!

Dearborn seems to have been lost as a US city, there seems to have been a quiet coup de tat. Instead of American law ruling, the mobs rule. It would be hoped the federal authorities notice and take back their city. (Well, maybe the next administration).

Even though most people might not agree with Ruben's tactics, his small sacrifice in taking a beating, exposes the truth of Dearbornistan and the truth of the nature of the Muslims. Just as they've done centuries ago, they continue to do now...throwing rocks, etc. This sacrifice has not hit "THE BLAZE" and was mentioned on the "GLEN BECK SHOW."

Though I don't agree with Ruben's tactics, his sacrifice (taking the beatings) exposes even more the truth of Dearborn and Muslims there. This video is reported on "THE BLAZE" and was mentioned on Glen Beck Radio. This is all really thanks to David Wood for initiating the truth!

More Constitutional problems for the Dearborn Police. Does anybody know if Thomas Moore will be representing Israel's group in any upcoming litigation against Dearborn? The issue remains the same as in prior Arab Fests - the Dearborn Police's Constitutional duty was to ensure the protection of Constitutional rights and NOT to curtail those rights by an escort out of the Festival when the speech proved to be unpopular.

In Dave Woods case, the Police response to the crowd's reaction to the unpopular speech was to remove Dave and company through the arrest procedure. With Israel's group the police response to the crowd's reaction to the unpopular speech was to remove Israel's group from the Arab Fest. In both cases the Constitutional rights were removed with the victims.

The proper action for the Dearbornistan Police to have taken would have mirrored the Little Rock Nine incident when, in 1957, Federal troops were summoned to escort black children into a segregated high school in Little Rock. If it takes the military on the streets of Dearborn to enforce the Constitutional rights of Christians then so be it.

Apollos26 said "With all that said, I am not defending the muslims at all. They behaved primitive and violent as they always do. It was interesting to see, how in an instant they can yell foul language and in the next second they shout "Allahuakbar."

I applaud your stance Samatar. Thank you for being objective and showing some integrity on this issue. I would say the same thing regardless of what or who they are. Christian, Jew, Atheist, Muslim etc.. There is no place for this in a civilized world.

Remember, the 2009 trouble,even the 2010 arrests of Acts 17? the publicity the events received? Yes, some Christians blamed you (quite wrongly), but, on many Christian blogs, and even mainstream media, the story was well covered, most of the time, honestly. No one with the slightest passing interest in evangelism had the excuse of missing the story.

That said, I hope David isn't too offended when I say that, if some group had to be arrested, it was yours! Can you imagine Ruben in a courtroom? And his video "defense "?

even with the behavior of the Muslims well documented, face it...we've been taught to expect better of Christians.

BTW, last night I checked out Israel's blog, to see what he and his friends had to say on the matter. Obviously, this was just a slight diversion for a few members of the areagroup. For, although they did have a link to Islamic beliefs, NOT ONE WORD was written about this incident.

Thank you, David, and the rest of Acts 17 for providing Christianity with a voice, in a place that needed it badly. To openminded people, you outshout Ruben Israel and similar screamers often without saying a word.

What needs to happen is that the City of Dearborn, Michigan refuse to issue any more permits for this festival. Acts 17 should sue the City of Dearborn, Michigan and the organizers of the festival for $100 million for violations of the free speech rights.

Yes, I'm being obnoxious. I'm also a bad spiller. answering muslim white-washing islam on 20/20 was a video feature on wretched tv. They have a preview clip from the show and David Wood's mug is up there!! www.wretchedradio.com. Go watch Todd Friel's follow up snark.

I heard something interesting about what happened the next day after the events shown in this video. They stood in front of a Dearborn mosque with their signs and some Muslim man tried to run over them with his truck. That man is now in jail and is charged with 9 counts of attempted murder. (Source: Gadi Adelman in his "America Akbar" program, based on his prior phone conversation with Ruben Israel.)

Yes, I've heard that too, from a different source. I've also heard that the man who tried to run them over was already wanted by police for ties to terrorism. I've been waiting for the story to come out before posting it.

Harassment is not a form of protected free speech. The police should have arrested the hate group that posed as Christians before it was able to provoke the mob violence that resulted -- and which has plenty of precedence among non-Muslims.

So then Muslims that hold up says that say "Freedom of Speech go to hell" or 'Sharia will rule" should also go to jail too, right? What about muslims who sell books that call for violence against Jews and other non-believers (as it was shown, was being sold at that same festival last year)?

Even if you do say yes, to say that holding signs is "incitement" and "provoking" is quite frankly, unamerican and bewildering to me.

I notice you say your a pastor on your blog. Frankly, I suggest you look at the life of Christ and his apostles. Many times they said things that other people did not like, and then the other side got violent. So, by your logic, wouldn't they be "inciting" by pointing out sin in the people who then became violent? How is that any different than pointing out the falsehood of Islam?

It is interesting that your "Blogger" profile asks the question, "The question for those who would claim to be Christians is simply this: Will you take up this agenda? Or will you take up his name in vain?" This appears to have been asked in the context of abiding by the teachings of Jesus and living one's life with Jesus as the central example.

Without Doubt, the Pharisees believed themselves to be, at the very least, victims of "harassment" by Jesus and his teachings; teachings with which they disagreed and which eroded their foundations of power within the Roman Empire. For this reason, the death of Jesus was plotted and executed - all because Jesus spoke words which harassed individuals who stood to lose power if he was not silenced.

Now the question. Based upon your statement of assertions that the protesting Christian group should have been arrested for voicing their opinion at Arab Fest; dissenting, unpopular opinions which upset the surrounding crowd, do you similarly believe that Jesus' crucifixion was just and proper? Does the uniformity of your belief system remain whole and intact when transferred from Dearborn to Jerusalem?

You need to rewatch this video. Read the signs. Note that the Arab/Muslim community was simply having a peaceful celebration, minding their own business, when this obnoxious hate group showed up to crash their party with megaphones and hate-spewing signs.

I'm not agreeing with the actions of the Muslims. I see them as fallen and in need of Christ. I don't expect a Christian response from non-Christians. But I do expect those who take the name of Christ to behave in ways consistent with the Spirit of God.

What I find most troubling about this hate group that you are supporting by defending, is that they admit to knowing from last year that this approach to “witnessing” was ineffective in winning converts among the Muslims. Rather, this approach had a predictable violent reaction. If this group were truly trying to introduce Christ to the lost Muslim community, why did they not strategize and come up with a better, more effective way to communicate the love of God in Christ? Instead, they went in behaving in ways they knew would provoke violent reactions and they had the gall to think the police should support them in their harassing behavior.

If you walk up to someone who you know is not a Christian, who you know is fallen and living in the flesh, and you know from experience that they may be prone to violence, and you get in their face and start hurling insults that are obviously prejudiced against that person's ethnicity, culture, and religion, and if you know from last year that the response could get hostile, and you go ahead and get in their face with relentless incendiary ridicule through a megaphone(!) while pressing up against them and their family and friends, you are not a VICTIM when they respond in the manner you pushed them to. It's like walking up to a bully who's minding his own business and poking him in the eye. When he beats the crap out of you, you are not a victim, you are just an idiot. The bully's response was wrong. But you should have known better and behaved as a Christian, not as a lunatic!

If people in this country think they can convert Muslims (or win any person to Christ) by such obnoxious and hateful behavior, then we are in real trouble. And if they think this kind of behavior will make America safer or more righteous, they are equally naïve. And if they think defending such godlessness as this group engages in is appropriate, then they are not acting as good Christians or as good Americans.

As I said, it's clear that the Muslims—good and bad—need to hear the gospel and come to Christ. They need to see Christ in our behavior. If we continue to lower ourselves to non-Christian methods and standards, and if we continue to repay evil for evil, then, yes, they may certainly destroy the west as you fear. If the behavior in the video is indicative of the current state of Christianity in the USA, then God may well use Islam to wipe us off the map, as he used Babylon and Assyria to rid the holy land of an unrepentant Israel. But the good news is, if that video and your support of it really is indicative of the current state of Christianity in the USA, then Christianity has already died here and no longer remains in our land to be wiped away—and in that case, the Muslims have already won. Let them have this land if this group represents the current state of Christianity or America.

Let me say it again: Muslims need Christ. That is why it is so heart-breaking to see you and groups like this behaving in (or advocating) ways that would drive them away from Christ.

Look what you just did. First, you claimed that the activities of Ruben Israel's group were ILLEGAL and that the group should have been ARRESTED. This is an absurdly false claim, since everything the group did is perfectly legal. So we pointed out that you don't seem to understand the law or the First Amendment.

Now you respond to our (correct) assessment by saying that the activities of the group are ineffective and tend to drive people away. I don't see many people on this blog disagreeing with such an assessment. Indeed, it's exactly what I said in my post. We weren't defending the actions of the group as correct, Christ-like, wise, or beneficial. But we were defending their actions as legal in the United States of America.

So are you saying that ineffective evangelistic tactics are illegal, and that ineffective and provocative street preachers should be arrested, especially if they drive people away from the Gospel? Or are you abandoning your claim that the group's actions were illegal?

First, I did not state my own opinion when I said harassment is not a form of protected free speech under the U.S. Constitution. That was based on Supreme Court rulings. As a journalist, I studied the first amendment and I know that the right to free speech does not protect all forms of speech. You can research this easily if you don't get that.

Second, what took place here was an obvious effort to incite mob violence. The group documented their own behavior. The proof is on video. Inciting a mob to voilence is an act of disturbing the peace. Arresting the group would have made sense.

Third, the fact that the group bracketed its activities with political remarks aimed at maligning not just Muslims but Barack Obama, shows the group's real motives as politcal and not as Christian or evangelistic. I find it disheartening that you who are Christians are falling for this thinly veneered attempt at political propaganda. That is, after all, all this really is. What is clear from this video, is that the hate group that produced it wasn't just targeting Muslims for the advancement of the gospel. If they were, they'd have thought this through more carefully. Rather, they intentionally sought to provoke Muslims to mob behavior that they could film and use against not just Muslims, but somehow against Obama--because in their ignorance they continue to see Obama's successes at diplomacy with American and world Muslims as a weakness, instead of a strength, and as an indication that he is a Muslim himself, which he clearly is NOT. I do not care to be drawn into a political discussion. But I do feel compelled by fairness to point out that no other president has been more effective in combating Al Qaeda. Even though it was Obama who eliminated bin Laden, ignorant groups like the one in this video continue to try to make him out to be a terrorist or soft on terror. They promote racial, ethnic and religious hatred and try to link him to the groups they hate. And so this orchestrated clash with a non-Christian mob by racists posing as Christians was obviously politically motivated and has nothing to do with proclaiming Christ or with Christianity being attacked on American soil. Nor does it even have anything to do with Obama. It is rather the product of bigoted ignorance aimed at preying on the fears of ignorant people and spreading terror by promoting racial and religious prejudice.

Wow! You really have no clue what you're talking about. Their actions were simply holding up signs (and a pig's head) and talking. If you're saying that we can place these activities in the "harassment" category, then unpopular free speech is not protected. For instance, if the KKK has a rally to promote racism, you could call this "harassment" and lock them up. Indeed, even if a Christian peacefully hands out a Gospel tract to a Muslim, why wouldn't this constitute "harassment" (on your silly definition), since Muslims might get offended?

By the way, why do you think that groups like Westboro Baptist Church, Ruben Israel, etc., are allowed to attend gay rallies and parades, and to hold up signs saying "God hates fags," etc. According to you, such behavior is illegal. Did the police simply not get your memo on what qualifies as free speech? Why do police not throw them all in jail? Are the police and courts simply ill-informed? Perhaps you should contact them and explain the law to them.

Unfortunately, you are inferring a moral equivalency between the act of being obnoxious and hateful and the act of being assaultive. The two are mutually exclusive of one another with the assaultive behavior being much worse and unlawful while the obnoxious behavior is just plain stupid. Rational people acknowledge that the purpose of this Christian group was to foment a Constitutional crisis rather than win the hearts and minds of Christian converts from Islam. Dearborn is particularly fertile for this type of Constitutional crisis because the aldermen and elected and appointed officials of the city are every bit as stupid as the ranting Christians whom you assail. The difference is that the right to be obnoxious and stupid in public is guaranteed by the United States Constitution while there is no right to assaultive behavior.

You assert that we are supportive of and defend the actions of the subject Christian group. No one here needs to defend their actions, the United States Constitution and the Supreme Court has already accomplished that and we are merely pointing out that simple fact. Please don't kill the messengers because of their message.

The City of Dearborn has made this a, decidedly, secular issue because of their improper responses when the Islamic population of Dearborn replaces the Constitution with Mob-Ocracy. Anybody want a hefty payday? Go to Dearborn during the Arab Fest and preach under the banner of Christianity! This is the message that is being sent by the Mayor, Police Chief and other City officials and it is being heard, loud and clear, by the fringe element. Hopefully Acts 17 wasn't the last of the reputable and articulate evangelists to attend Arab Fest.

Without a doubt the tactics that were used by this particular group would alienate anyone from Christianity, but I seriously doubt that their purpose was to win converts. I heard somewhere, perhaps from Ruben Israel himself, words to the effect that "If Christians are mistreated in Dearborn you will get us instead".

While the behavior of Israel's group did incite the crowd with emotion and violence, who is to say that the words of Jesus and the threat they posed to the Pharisees were any less dangerous. I still await an answer to my previous question regarding the justice and propriety of Jesus' crucifixion.

The U.S. Supreme Court Case you cite would be Schenck v. United States 249 U.S. 47 (1919) in which:

"United States Supreme Court decision that upheld the Espionage Act of 1917 and concluded that a defendant did not have a First Amendment right to express freedom of speech against the draft during World War I. Ultimately, the case established the "clear and present danger" test, which lasted until 1969 when protection for speech was raised in Brandenburg v. Ohio to "Imminent lawless action."*

This was the case in which the infamous quip of Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. regarding the shouting of fire in a crowded theater was written into the Majority Opinion which established the "clear and present danger" test.

In the following years, through subsequent U.S. Supreme Court rulings this test was, dramatically, weakened and in 1969 in Brandenburg v. Ohio, it was replaced with the "Imminent lawless action" test.

"The Court upheld the statute on the ground that, without more, "advocating" violent means to effect political and economic change involves such danger to the security of the State that the State may outlaw it. Cf. Fiske v. Kansas, 274 U.S. 380 (1927). But Whitney has been thoroughly discredited by later decisions. See Dennis v. United States, 341 U.S. 494, at 507 (1951). These later decisions have fashioned the principle that the constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action."*

Since Israel's group was not involved in speech concerning the promotion of violence or use of force, but merely opinions of religion, any restriction under the "Imminent lawless action" test would NOT apply to him.

I must say it was amusing reading Dave Leigh's rantings, his first criticisms of the group were all legitimate, yet he turns out calling them racist bigots with a political anti-obama agenda, hence the true agenda was not religious.

In a few messages further along you see him defending Obama's success in combating terrorism(Despite not mentioning Obama's illegal decision to go to war with libya and despite the fact that no eye witnesses corroborated the person thought of as Osama Bin Laden). So in all irony it turns out Dave's real agenda was to defend Obama and a particular political view point, he thought this group should be prohibited from criticizing Obama and used the smokescreen of "racist and bigot" to hide behind it.

Further more Dave, it appears to anyone with half a brain, that if you provoke a bully, even a bully who is prone to violence, the bully will never have the right to beat the **** out of you, smash and destroy property and control you or your free speech. The person provoking the bully will always have the right to criticize the bully, even if the criticisms are somewhat invalid.

I don't care if this group is secretly parading themselves as Christians while they are filthy Atheists, fact remains is that their signs were there own opinions.

Dave is right about one thing though, America has fallen. Since Dhimmni's like Dave are accepting the terms of the Sharia so easily, even defending the right to prohibit criticism of Islam under the guise of "biogtry and racism", utterly disgusting.

David Wood, how many Dave's do you think are out there? I think there is millions of them who despise the West and long for the Sharia and will engage in all the smokescreen tactics provided by the Muslim Brotherhood nation subjugation manuel. Is Dave even a Christian? Can we believe this? I vouch this is taqiya, Dave learn what freedom of speech is and die for it.

Nazaam: While it is interesting how the used footage is misleading in that not all of the Muslims were against Isreal, it doesn't really disprove the main point of this article.

The unedited footage doesn't show Isreal's group being violent, and the article you posted admits that the violence against the Christians happened, so the title of that article itself seems somewhat deceptive.

Samatar: Once again, by "refuted" you are using the Muslim definition of "saying something", and once again this doesn't make you look very honest. I read the one about the corruption of the gospels, which is riddled with logical errors. (My apologies if this is covered in the video)

"A simple example of this can be demonstrated from the New Testament. While the Bible is considered to be an ‘inspired scripture’, there are portions of it which claim to be void of God’s guidance, direction and inspiration:"

How can only "portions" be only considered uninspired, when the main theme of the gospels is that Jesus died and rose again (which contradicts the quoran). You'd have to have a "holey" bible in order to fit in with the Quroan.

Obvously since we DO have scriptures from before Mohammad was born, so to say it changed makes no sense, so now Muslims are resorting to saying there is another gospel (Galations 1:6-9, Hmm.)

"No Christian believes that Jesus was sent with the New Testament, but that the NT was writen and gathered after the ascension of Christ. Therefore, the Muslim and the Christian both refer to two distinct sets of revelation, where one is not the other, as some would have us falsely believe"

Of course, there are no records of any sort of scriptures referring to Jesus that match with Quroanic theology, nor any sect of Christianity that matches the beliefs of the Quoran. The author of this pamphlet KNOWS this, and giving no citations makes this false claim anyway.Islamic scholarship!

The "facts" are also ridiculous. It cites Matt 5:17-20 (on fulfillment) which makes no sense and is logically BACKWARDS since one cannot fulfill something that has not happened yet. Jesus was talking about fulfilling the Old testament, and cannot logically have nothing to do with the Quoran. Of course, the author apparently has no problem with making dishonest arguments.

Brother thank you for taking the time to briefly REFUTE the pamphlet written by Ijaz.

I'm not sure if you are aware of this but the person who wrote this pamphlet is the same person who debated Anthony Rogers, "Does the Old Testament Teach that the Angel of the Lord is a distinct divine person in the Godhead"

One of the things that is strange about this fellow is that weeks after the debate he still did not even know what Anthony's position was that the Angel of the Lord is YHWH. Even though Anthony said it numerous times in the debate.

The funny part of all this is that Samatar and his heroes want us all to believe that one day they are gonna wake up in some magical place were they will be kings and women will freely fulfill all their fantasies.

Samatar why didn't your folks hand out tracts about this fantasy world you're expecting to live in one day?

I found this explanation about "stoning" disturbing by Imam Hamza Yusuf (one of the young Muslim evangelists in America)... I know its off topic on this thread but you might find it strange and or shocking to hear his explanations towards the "stoning" hadiths that David has often pointed out.

i love the holy land an gods people as for the police they r afraid if we look at 911 how easy people lost there lifes in the attack in ny how can u make peace when they dont want it an america people at lease some are scare an afraid to stand up an take back our country ever sense god was toke out of america hell has broke out on us an other countries who dont believe in god or curse him we need god back in our school court house god bless american

Women in Islam

American Freedom Law Center

America

The Truth about CAIR

FAQ Page

On this website, we engage Muslims and the foundations of Islam without trying to be "PC". We feel honesty is better than disguised language. As you can read on our FAQ, this is out of love, not out of hatred. Thanks, and we're looking forward to seeing your comments!